Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(16-04-2015 02:07 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  [Image: -hell-no.jpg]

How about a secular republic? I am against monarchy even when ceremonial. A powerless monarchy is just pretend totalitarianism in a democratic system.

Yes. But...

(15-04-2015 12:32 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  Which form of government of these three choices would be held most accountable and would be the most DIFFICULT to corrupt?

Representative democracy
Direct democracy
Constitutional monarchy

In what order would you put them in terms of government accountability?

Why do you think this?

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Minimalist, DemonicLemon, GirlyMan, WhiskeyDebates, and EvolutionKills.
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LaramieHirsch's post
16-04-2015, 11:51 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
I don't think accountability is intrinsically bound to the way you choose your leaders, although that can have an influence. Accountability is something that rather stems from separation of powers IMO.

As such monarchy, where a single person is executive, judicial and legislative branches of the government all rolled into one... seems like the least likely to support accountability.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
17-04-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(16-04-2015 11:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  I don't think accountability is intrinsically bound to the way you choose your leaders, although that can have an influence. Accountability is something that rather stems from separation of powers IMO.

As such monarchy, where a single person is executive, judicial and legislative branches of the government all rolled into one... seems like the least likely to support accountability.

I agree, but I don't think that would be a constitutional monarchy. I'm not exactly sure what a constitutional monarchy is, though -- maybe something like what England has? In which case it's not really a monarchy at all.

In any case, as soon as I see or hear "Catholic monarchy", my whole being screams "No!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(17-04-2015 08:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 11:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  I don't think accountability is intrinsically bound to the way you choose your leaders, although that can have an influence. Accountability is something that rather stems from separation of powers IMO.

As such monarchy, where a single person is executive, judicial and legislative branches of the government all rolled into one... seems like the least likely to support accountability.

I agree, but I don't think that would be a constitutional monarchy. I'm not exactly sure what a constitutional monarchy is, though -- maybe something like what England has? In which case it's not really a monarchy at all.

In any case, as soon as I see or hear "Catholic monarchy", my whole being screams "No!"

It's been done. It didn't work out well. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
17-04-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(17-04-2015 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  It's been done. It didn't work out well. Drinking Beverage

Next time will be better Dodgy Inquisitor will be a regular job just like any other. No more dungeons. Just big airy rooms with gym-like equipment where you can torture people over your morning coffee.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
17-04-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(16-04-2015 11:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  As such monarchy, where a single person is executive, judicial and legislative branches of the government all rolled into one... seems like the least likely to support accountability.

Charles I and Louis XVI among others seem to have ended up pretty "accountable", depending on how you define it...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-04-2015, 08:54 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(17-04-2015 08:45 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  It's been done. It didn't work out well. Drinking Beverage

Next time will be better Dodgy Inquisitor will be a regular job just like any other. No more dungeons. Just big airy rooms with gym-like equipment where you can torture people over your morning coffee.

[Image: fourLights.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
17-04-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Laramie,

First let's define corruption.

Wikipedia says "In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquire a personal benefit. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain."[1]
and
"Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence."[2]

So broadly we are talking about acting in one's own personal interests over that of the people you represent in a high government office. We're talking about abuse of power.

I think the best way to avoid abuses of power is to ensure that for every major power there is an effective and proportionate opposing power. In democratic systems there are a number of these in place:
- The majority party is typically opposed by an alternate government, the opposition. These swap around every few years.
- Different houses are often set up in opposition to each other, for example a house of representatives and a senate. These bodies are elected using different techniques
- Elected branches are separated from and kept in check by courts that ensure fundamental rights are upheld.

None of these protections are present in a monarchy. Monarchies are ultimately autocratic, and autocracy breeds corruption. A monarch may be held in check by a powerful court or powerful military, or even (as I guess you would prefer) a powerful clergy. But the system is not built with check and balances in place. Those that exist are ad hoc and have evolved over time to limit the tyranny of bad rulers.

Direct democracy potentially unwinds some balance of power also. Let's say that a 2/3 majority of people in a given country vote directly to drive out all catholics. Is it down to the courts to uphold the human rights of the oppressed class? Is there anything we can do to stay the hand of the people when they have spoken directly? I tend to like the idea of a "direct vote" political party taking up seats in a senate, but the practicalities leave me preferring representative democracy overall. Members of parliament are accountable for their votes. Their name will forever be linked to the decisions they have made. They do spend time researching the way their vote should fall. They do spend time gaining sufficient expertise to cast their vote. I'm wary of changing wholesale from a system that asks the population to carefully consider political issues once every few years to one that asks them to decide every few hours. I think those with the most expertise are likely to be those with the least say, overrun by mob rule and facebook campaigns rather than carefully deliberated positions.

So overall I think representative democracy is the best choice between the three - the least corruptible. That said I know that in some countries such as the US there is no adequate check on the power of interest groups with deep pockets, and until such time as there is an effective check there will be at least an appearance of corruption in representative democratic systems.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
17-04-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(16-04-2015 03:59 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 02:07 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  [Image: -hell-no.jpg]

How about a secular republic? I am against monarchy even when ceremonial. A powerless monarchy is just pretend totalitarianism in a democratic system.

Yes. But...

(15-04-2015 12:32 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  Which form of government of these three choices would be held most accountable and would be the most DIFFICULT to corrupt?

Representative democracy
Direct democracy
Constitutional monarchy

In what order would you put them in terms of government accountability?

Why do you think this?

I would say a direct democracy, as you would have to corrupt the entire people. Representative democracy is easier to corrupt because you have only to bribe the lawmakers. Constitutional monarchy is no different then representative monarchy if the monarch serves a purely symbolic purpose. A true monarchy would be the easiest to corrupt because the people you have to bribe are not accountable to the people, thus even if the scandal comes out the rulers cannot be removed from office by the people.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Res Publica's post
17-04-2015, 09:39 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(17-04-2015 08:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 11:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  As such monarchy, where a single person is executive, judicial and legislative branches of the government all rolled into one... seems like the least likely to support accountability.

Charles I and Louis XVI among others seem to have ended up pretty "accountable", depending on how you define it...

Well IIRC the legal case for beheading either of them was hella murky, given the notion of Divine Right of Kings (thanks Civ II for teaching me that Tongue ).

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: